Subject: Re: [STOP] Blanket ban on the internet a folly - Op-ed from CoryBernardi

I'm not familiar with those incidents. I just know I don't have toobtain government approval before I start a conversation.

What about that guy that was up on charges in Germany for running a non regulation holocaust site in Australia, or that guy who wasarrested for handing out how to vote cards that said you didn't haveto fill out every box, or seen a TV interview with David Hicks yet.

There is NO censorship on speech in Australia.

The current ratings system applies only to commercial media so for one to present the argument "We already censor tv, radio ect" they would have to argue that Internet filtering only be applied to sites which make a commercial income from their content.

The Toben and Scully cases are important precedents, and the various state andCommonwealth "hate speech" laws do pose a serious threat to freedomof speech.

and for an entirely personal view of holocaust implications -http://ericcarwardine.wordpress.com/2009/02/08/daddy-what-did-you-do-in-the-holocaust/

9 FEBRUARY 2009

We may disagree with Eric and Syd, but they aren't spammers. The Tobenand Scully cases are important precedents, and the various state andCommonwealth "hate speech" laws do pose a serious threat to freedomof speech.

EFA's 2002 submission on application of section 18C of the RacialDiscrimination Act is at http://www.efa.org.au/Publish/hreocsubm2002.html

10 FEBRUARY 2009

As an 82-year-old gay, Jewish South African, living in Australia for the past 30 years, I have been somewhat shocked at the latest postings on the EFA email list.

In apartheid South Africa we lived through censorship, police state control, racism, sexism, homophobia and anti-semitism, not forgetting that South Africa and Israel worked closely together to develop nuclear devices, one of which was tested in the South Atlantic some 20 to 25 years ago, and denied by all involved. However, the Nationalist government in South Africa blamed the Jews in South Africa for all the revolts taking place during those years.

To now have postings that suggest that it is in order to have discussions on holocaust revisionism, citing Toben and the French revisionist (next we will no doubt have Irving and the leaders of the revisionist groups from the USA and Canada) is to show anti-semitism rearing its ugly head in a censorship context after years of anti-discrimination and anti-vilification legislation aimed to reduce hate speech of all sorts.

Hate speech leads to hate crimes, thuggery, assaults, abuse, murder and mass murder, to name but a few episodes which have occurred during my lifetime.

Anti-semitism is on the rise, yet again, and some of the obvious reasons are those that equate Israel and Zionism with being Jewish in countries other than Israel. It doesn't take long for the co-option of free speech to the agenda to attack all those aspects of abusing Jews for blaming everything on the Holocaust and justifying the actions of the state of Israel.

The Holocaust didn't just kill six million Jews. It killed countless millions of homosexuals, communists, dissidents of all sorts, Gypsies, Poles, Russians and other nationalities in Europe and beyond. Dictatorships of the 20th century have extended themselves into the 21st century and are set to continue. Vile words are followed by vile deeds and censorship of any sort does not stop them from flowing.

How did this topic enter the EFA posts? What place has it in the discussions om various other censorship topics such as child porn, sex of all sorts, and Conroy's attempts to suppress freedom of the web? Or is this just a way to say: "Let's kill off all the Jews and everybody's problems will be over! Oi vey!

10 FEBRUARY 2009

Please keep discussions relevant to this list. If people want to discuss _Jones v Toben_, that's on topic. The Israel-Palestine conflict is not, nor are events from WWII (unless perhaps someone isresearching the history of wartime censorship).

10 FEBRUARY 2009

Toben is connected to the Israel-Palestine conflict and WWII, so if Toben is on topic then so are the other issues. Knowledge of history of the last 100 years helps put it all in perspective, particularly in relation to what is censorship and what isn't. We are now censoring on the anti-censorship lists?

This last item is the one which has been censored by EFA - and having unsubscribed I feel much better for not having to read the anti-semites making excuses for Toben, Scully, Faurisson and all the other Holocaust deniers. David Irving will be next on their list of deniers they support with their ideas of what freedom of speech actually means.

3 JUNE 2009

This article was in MCV on 3 June 2009 and reflects yet again the disgusting state of affairs at NMIT because of the person at the top who does not allow dissent or disagreement with his views.

22 JULY 2009

29 JULY 2009

19 SEPTEMBER 2009

Received by email on 18 September 2009:

According to the this disturbing article, SBS [one of the two Australian public broadcasters] has been directed to no longer use the term "palestinian land" when refering to the OPT.

The article also outlines the attempts to silence pro-Palestinian activists and advocates, including how a pro-Palestinian student group on Sydney University has been denied club affiliation and the attacks by the Zionist lobby on well-know Australian investigative journalist, John Pilger, who has been highly critical of Israel and who was recently awarded Sydney Peace Prize.

In solidarity, Kim
www.livefromoccupiedpalestine.blogspot.com
www.directaction.org.au
***

http://newmatilda.com/2009/09/15/ever-feel-walls-are-closing

In a further restriction on political debate, journalists at SBS have been directed not to use the term "Palestinian land" when describing the occupied territories, writes Jake Lynch

So narrow has political debate become here in Australia over the Israel/Palestine conflict that attempts to remind Australians of basic facts, well accepted in the global community, are falling foul of censorship — silenced by the swish of a bureaucrat's pen.

Journalists at public broadcaster SBS have been told, in a missive from their head of news, that the station's Ombudsman has ruled out the use of the phrase "Palestinian land" to describe the occupied territories of East Jerusalem and the West Bank. The status of these territories "remains the subject of negotiation", the memo says, and should be described solely with reference to their geographical location, for instance: "Israeli settlements on the West Bank".

This shows the chilling effect of the selective deafness practised by frontbench politicians in Canberra, which has, as I have pointed out before, put Australia further into Israel's camp than any other country, including the United States. Labor's Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard found some rare common ground with former Liberal treasurer Peter Costello when both were part of a senior bipartisan delegation to Israel. When a delegation of that kind fails to mention, even once, the attack on Gaza at the turn of the year or questions over its legality, it has the effect of placing huge pieces of reality outside the bounds of the legitimately controversial. They fall into the "don't-mention-the-war" category, or what media scholar Daniel Hallin called the "zone of deviancy".

In fact, it is the Australian Parliament that is somewhat deviant on this issue, compared to parliaments elsewhere. And things are not improving. Julia Irwin, who earlier this year was almost alone among Australian MPs to join with the rest of the world in criticising Israel's attack on Gaza, last night announced her intention not to run in the next federal election. The disappearance from the Parliament of a voice prepared to say what many people know on this issue is bad news for the state of this debate in Australia.

At the University of Sydney, where I work, the Students for Palestine group have been told by their Student Union that they are not entitled to form a club, and benefit from the facilities, for reasons no one is allowed to disclose. All those present at the meeting that imposed this ban have been sworn to secrecy. So the Students for Palestine called a protest rally later this month, which is also being advertised by students from other universities: universities like Macquarie, also in Sydney, whose head of security reportedly frog-marched several of them off the campus for leafleting outside the library, occasioning complaints of "offensive behaviour".

Talking of which, the steady trickle of emails I receive from supporters of Israel has grown lately, their writers now apparently feeling emboldened to make more abusive and, in some cases, openly racist comments. Then there's the latest stoush between the pro-Israel lobby and the Sydney Peace Foundation, over the decision to award this year's Sydney Peace Prize to the journalist and filmmaker, John Pilger.

Pilger is famous for many things, including his reports raising the alarm over Pol Pot's killing fields in Cambodia during the 1970s, and his courage in smuggling himself into East Timor under Suharto, and Burma, where he brought out unforgettable pictures of slave labour being used to build roads by the Burmese military junta.

His film, Palestine Is Still The Issue, is valuable precisely because it opens by situating the conflict in the context of international law and the well established view of the international community. The reason why the Occupied Palestinian Territories are so called is because there is an important difference between their claims over them and those of Israel: the Palestinians are their lawful owners. As Pilger points out, the reason why there have been countless UN resolutions condemning Israel's occupation is because the inadmissibility of territory acquired by force is a cornerstone of international law.

As the SBS absurdity shows, these basic facts are now regarded as "controversial" in the context of Australian public discourse. It represents a triumph for Israel and its apologists here, who are thinking aloud about how best to take on the peace prize and its new laureate. "Strategist" Ernie Schwartz told the Australian Jewish News that, if professionally consulted — as some suspect he has been — he would advise critics of the award to face down allegations that they, in attacking a journalist for his journalism, are enemies of open debate. "Be realistic about the fact that we'll always come across as myopic," he said. "That's just the way we're going to be cast."

Pilger-bashing over his reporting from the Middle East has already spread to academia. First into the breach, after the announcement of the honour, was a blog, The Sensible Jew, which declared him "odious" and "a joke among the serious-minded". It featured a post from Philip Mendes, a social work lecturer at Melbourne's Monash University, drawing attention to his scholarly article on Pilger in the Australian Journal of Jewish Studies. It's unusual for an academic journal — especially one enjoying the highest "A*" rating, as this one does — to publish a contribution by a researcher outside his or her own field.

In it, Mendes criticises Pilger for declaring that it is his "duty to rectify" an imbalance in Western news coverage. But unfortunately for Mendes that is actually what Pilger is supposed to be doing: Pilger makes documentaries for Independent Television in the UK, which is obliged to follow the requirement that TV licensees "ensure that justice is done to a full range of significant views and perspectives", as stipulated by the UK's industry regulator, the Office of Communication. In short, they need Pilger to make up for shortcomings elsewhere.

Mendes treats the question of bias in reporting of the Palestine/Israel conflict as if scholarly opinion on the subject is equally divided, when in fact the vast majority of research finds that frames, definitions and versions of events favoured by Israel predominate in the news. Among the evidence he adduces to back up this claim, representative of the overall weakness of his argument, is the unpublished study by BBC News management of their own output, which he uses without setting it in the appropriate context, which was a dispute with the BBC's governors at the time of the study.

Attempts like these to restrict debate or to delegitimise certain voices are of deep concern not just in relation to the Palestine/Israel issue, but to all of the issues that we rely on the media to cover. When Pilger receives the award in November, from New South Wales Governor, Professor Marie Bashir, and gives the City of Sydney Peace Prize lecture in the Opera House the following evening, it will be an overdue signal that we are entitled to know what we know, and to say what we need to say about it.

There will be a day for the oppressor when he will be crushed like garlic - Palestinian proverb.

Some came and took our land, forced us to leave, forced us to live in camps. I think this is terrorism. Using means to resist this terrorism and stop its effects - this is called struggle." — Leila Khaled

Remember the solidarity shown to Palestine here and everywhere... and remember also that there is a cause to which many people have committed themselves, difficulties and terrible obstacles notwithstanding. Why? Because it is a just cause, a noble ideal, a moral quest for equality and human rights - Edward Said

17 APRIL 2010

A DVD version of Italian sadist film Salo has been given approval by Australian censorship authorities, but the federal government is pushing to have the decision reconsidered.

On Tuesday the Classification Board approved the distribution of Salo O Le 120 Giornate Di Sodoma Salo (The 120 Days of Sodom), overturning a 1998 decision to ban the film.

The board gave the film an R18+ rating and compelled it to carry a warning that it contained ''scenes of torture and degradation, sexual violence and nudity''.

But yesterday federal Home Affairs Minister Brendan O'Connor asked the classification review board to reassess the decision, though he did not say if he wanted it overturned.

The 1975 Pier Paolo Pasolini film tells the story of four fascists in Mussolini's Italy who kidnap teenagers and subject them to violence, sadism, sexual and mental torture before they are each executed.

The film has a controversial history with classification authorities in Australia: it was banned when it was first released, then made legal in 1993 before a new ban was put in place in 1998. Over the years there have been applications from film distributors wanting the film approved, the most recent less than two years ago.

In approving the film, the classification board concluded its impact was reduced by its age. Inclusion in the DVD of nearly three hours of extra material and behind-the-scenes footage gave the film context and reinforced its fictional nature.

Mr O'Connor sought review of the decision because he believed a reassessment would be ''in the public interest''.

''There are likely to be sections of the community who will have different views on the content of this film so it is appropriate to have an independent review,'' the minister said.

''This film has a controversial classification history in Australia and even on this occasion the Classification Board was not unanimous in its decision.''

The decision to allow the film brings Australia into line with most of Europe, the US and New Zealand, where the film is legal.

The application to the classification board was made by Melbourne DVD distributor Shock. Its head of DVD acquisitions, Joshua Hibberd, said the film had a ''mystique and notoriety'' because of the ban.

''We can only applaud the decision … to finally approve the release of this classic film as it has been long overdue given it has been out in nearly every major territory for years,'' he said.

Salo is based on the book The 120 Days of Sodom by the Marquis de Sade. The film's director, Pasolini, was murdered shortly before it was released.

15 SEPTEMBER 2010

Article in The Age:

THE illegal screening of a banned zombie 'porn' film went ahead last night after police failed to arrive at the viewing.

LA Zombie played to a crowd of about 200 people at 1000 £ Bend - a cafe-bar in the city - as part of the Melbourne Underground Film Festival.

The audience cheered as some of the more shocking scenes, including a zombie sexually penetrating a dying man's open chest wound, played out on the big screen.

Scenes such as this prompted the Classification Board last month to refuse the movie classification as the Melbourne International Film Festival prepared to show it.

The refusal made screening the movie illegal but festival director Richard Wolstencroft said he was defying the ban to support freedom of speech.

''When MIFF dropped the ball [by not showing it] we felt we had to do something,'' he said. ''This is about freedom of speech … I believe in it. You can't just protect speech you agree with.''

29 DECEMBER 2010

Letter in MCV 29 December 2010:

What is the point of banning films in Australia?

When the brilliant film Ken Park was banned a few years ago, one could buy a copy in Sydney’s Chinatown a week later or on the internet.

Recently, the banned gay film LA Zombie was released on DVD (www.tlavideo.com), so why ban it when one can get a copy sent by mail?

The film is 95 per cent hard core, and all the cast is either old, overweight or have very plain looks – certainly not the types one is used to when watching porn.

We now, however, have the choice to say 'stuff you' to the film classification board and import the DVD in order to see it.

It may be the year's most boring film but at least it is available.

29 APRIL 2011

Article and letters in The Age newspaper:

Stop laughing, the Chaser ban is a serious matter.

AND just when we thought it was going so well, along comes the chastening of the Chaser, the castration of the ABC by a pair of blunt royal secateurs, and the scrapping of the alternative commentary on the royal wedding.

Call it what you will, fetch whichever cutting device you wish from the toolshed, this is, to me, nothing short of censorship. Worse, it is censorship initiated not by the broadcasters concerned, but from within the severe stucco Nash facade of Clarence House in London, home to and office of the heir to the throne of England and his two sons.

It was from here - possibly within a comfortable suite with ancestral portraits on the walls and a Georgian desk in front of the fireplace - that Prince Charles's press officer, Patrick Harrison, armed with magnifying glass to inspect the small print, reportedly imposed his will on the host broadcaster, the BBC, to obtain a written undertaking from the ABC that The Chaser's Royal Wedding Commentary would not proceed. Otherwise, no footage. Also apparently discussed was blocking ABC access to the broadcast by other networks.

What other choice, therefore, did the BBC have but to comply? What other choice did the ABC have but to cancel the program? If this were not enough, the BBC, presumably following royal dictum, has issued new bans on the use of wedding footage in comedy, drama or entertainment programs - disregarding the inconvenient truth that the embodiment of all three art forms are there to be found in abundance in the marriage and its aftermath. I'm surprised there isn't also a ban on relevant films: Kiss Me, Kate or Willie Wonka could be just the beginning.

What one hears - apart from the understandable groans of disgruntlement from the Chaser team and ABC executives (seldom has the word ''disappointment'' contained such ominous meaning) - are the fainter stirrings of monarchal control one thought as dead as Marley or the DLP or, to be Jurassic about it, as extinct as the great auk or the hairy mammoth. Enter - well, re-enter - the royal smut-hound. This was the affectionate name given by the late English critic Kenneth Tynan to the Lord Chamberlain.

This figure, the official in charge of the royal household, is responsible for arranging all state ceremonies, from christenings to coronations and, indeed, weddings. He also, in addition to appointing the keeper of the royal swans, had control over every play presented for public performance in the United Kingdom. His power to change, say, the phrase ''wind from a duck's behind'' to ''wind from Mount Zion'', or to substitute ''late evening'' for ''post-coital'', or ''jazz'' for ''crap'', was stemmed only in 1968 by the government of Harold Wilson. Only then could Hair, with its demure nudity, legally be performed on a British stage. Previously, such scenes were outlawed, in the words of one Lord Chamberlain, ''for fear of the sight of a pudendum''.

It took a long time - almost 250 years - to rid British theatre of this antiquated personage. The only advantage to the royal smut-hound was that his bite applied only to live performances; radio and television were free to sprinkle their smut into millions of innocent households. Because of this, the great blossoming of British satire - from That Was the Week That Was of the early 1960s, through the Python years and onwards to The Office and Little Britain - could occur without any form of undue interference.

How ironic, how sad, therefore, on the eve of a wedding that is supposed to make everyone happy, the groom's family or their representatives have imposed such ludicrous restrictions on the public broadcasters. How narrow-minded, how unnecessary.

The Chaser team has the right to feel aggrieved, but so do all those viewers who were looking forward to a bit of crunch in the inevitably soft-centred coverage. Only last Australia Day, the Prince of Wales recalled his ''huge affection'' for Australia, in spite of being called a ''Pommy bastard'' at Timbertop. Perhaps he wasn't joking.

The Chaser's proposed program on ABC2 on the royal wedding was legitimate commentary on an event of public interest.

THE Chaser's proposed program on ABC2 on the royal wedding was legitimate commentary on an event of public interest. Humour and satire are genuine political tools and are often suppressed by dictatorial regimes. Prince William may one day be the Australian head of state. As citizens of an (allegedly) free and democratic society, we are entitled to speak, write and view any ''take'' on his life that we may choose. Interference and censorship by the BBC and the royal family (via Clarence House spin doctors) is archaic and undemocratic and smacks of ordering peasants to show proper obeisance to their feudal lord or be punished.

Shame on the ABC for caving in to the British demands. A truly independent public broadcaster should refuse to submit to the demands of its English overlords and take the punishment of not having a ''live feed'' for the wedding on ABC1. Our ''punishment'' might mean no more episodes of Dr Who or Midsomer Murders but the price of democracy is never cheap.

I AM outraged the BBC has refused the feed of the royal wedding to ABC2, nobbling The Chaser before we had a chance to see what they had to offer. It is hard to believe it is the same BBC that gave us That Was the Week That Was, The Frost Report and Not the 9 O'clock News. It appears to have become so reactionary and precious. Obviously, the age of lese majeste is not dead. Let's hear what monarchists and other forelock-tuggers have to say in defence of censorship.

I HAVE no consuming interest in royal affairs but I am probably one of the very few people who think it appropriate that the presence of The Chaser should be discouraged.

There are still a few (very few) who consider marriage to be a sacred occasion for all concerned. And, religious beliefs aside, there are those who do not see traditional pomp and circumstance as something to be mocked and derided. The last thing the royal wedding needs is a bunch of antipodean clowns playing the (traditional) role of the the great Aussie knocker.

WHILE I wish the royal couple every happiness, I was dismayed at the Chaser's blocking. I am well over the media hype that examines the royals' lives in minute detail and was looking forward to an irreverent and refreshing view of the wedding.

NO SATIRE or comedy allowed? The royal family is a living sitcom with its misfits and miscreants living on the taxpayers of the Commonwealth. Perhaps we don't need The Chaser to tell it like it is. Just sit back and watch what happens to the latest fairytale marriage.

12 AUGUST 2012

From The Sunday Age newspaper, Melbourne, Australia, 12 August 2012:

A US Army private charged in a massive leak of government secrets claims his harsh pre-trial treatment during nine months in a military prison was directed from high up the chain of command and warrants dismissal of the entire case, according to documents his civilian lawyer has released.

The 110-page motion alleges Private Bradley Manning developed a rash from being forced to sleep beneath a stiff, suicide-prevention blanket and suffered an anxiety attack due to harassment by guards. It repeats well-publicised claims that Manning was forced for several days to surrender all his clothing at night and stand naked in his cell for roll call.

For several days in January 2011, he was forbidden to wear his glasses and forced to strip to his underwear during the day, the motion contends.

Manning faces 22 charges for allegedly sending hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables and war logs to the secret-spilling website WikiLeaks. He could be sentenced to life in prison if convicted of the most serious offence, aiding the enemy.

The Defence Department has said Manning's treatment properly conformed to the ''maximum custody'' or ''prevention of injury'' classifications in which he was held in Quantico, Virginia, from July 2010 to April 2011, when he was moved to medium security at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

Manning's lawyers claim there was no legal or medical justification for the harsh restrictions, and that his custody status contradicted the recommendations of multiple psychiatrists.

The lawyers intend to have Manning testify about his Quantico experience during a hearing starting on October 1, according to the document released on Friday. Military prosecutors didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on the motion posted by Manning's civilian lawyer, David Coombs, on his website.

Mr Coombs wrote he recently became aware of emails revealing that the brig officer who ordered the restrictions was acting on orders from an unidentified three-star general.

Mr Coombs wrote that in a January 2011 meeting, an unidentified senior officer ordered Manning be held in maximum custody or injury-prevention status indefinitely.

When a psychiatrist voiced concern, the senior officer declared: ''We'll do whatever we want to do,'' Mr Coombs wrote.

3 DECEMBER 2012

Article from The Age:

America's behaviour towards Bradley Manning is revealing. Wikileaks suspect testifies at hearing

US army private Bradley Manning, takes the stand at his trial, where he faces suspicion of leaking secret documents to the WikiLeaks website.

OVER the past 2½ years, all of which he has spent in a military prison, much has been said about Bradley Manning, but nothing has been heard from him. That changed late last week, when the 23-year-old US army private, who is accused of leaking classified documents to WikiLeaks, testified at his court martial about the conditions of his detention.

The oppressive, borderline-torturous measures he endured, including prolonged solitary confinement and forced nudity, have been known for some time. A formal UN investigation denounced them as ''cruel and inhuman''.

President Barack Obama's State Department spokesman, retired air force colonel P.J. Crowley, resigned after condemning Manning's treatment. A prison psychologist testified last week that Manning's conditions were more damaging than those found on death row, or at Guantanamo Bay.

Barack Obama ... his treatment of Manning a "disgrace". Photo: Reuters

Still, hearing the accused whistleblower's description of this abuse in his own words viscerally conveyed its horror.

''If I needed toilet paper I would stand to attention and shout: 'Detainee Manning requests toilet paper!','' Manning said. And: ''I was authorised to have 20 minutes' sunshine, in chains, every 24 hours.'' Early in his detention, he recalled, ''I had pretty much given up. I thought I was going to die in this eight-by-eight animal cage.''

The repressive treatment of Manning is one of the disgraces of Obama's first term and highlights many of the dynamics shaping his presidency. He not only defended Manning's treatment, but also, as commander-in-chief of the court martial judges, improperly decreed Manning's guilt when he asserted that he ''broke the law''.

Bradley Manning. Photo: AP

Worse, Manning is charged not only with disclosing classified information but of ''aiding the enemy'', for which the death penalty can be imposed (military prosecutors are seeking ''only'' life in prison).

The US government's radical theory is that, although Manning had no intent to do so, the leaked information could have helped al-Qaeda, a theory that essentially equates any disclosure of classified information - by any whistleblower or a newspaper - with treason.

Whatever one thinks of Manning's alleged acts, he appears the classic whistleblower. This information could have been sold for substantial sums to a foreign government or a terrorist group. Instead he apparently knowingly risked his liberty to show them to the world because - he said when he believed he was speaking in private - he wanted to start ''worldwide discussion, debates and reforms''.

Compare the aggressive prosecution of Manning to the US administration's vigorous efforts to shield Bush-era war crimes and massive Wall Street fraud from legal accountability. Not a single perpetrator of those crimes has faced court under Obama, a comparison that reflects the priorities and values of US justice.

Then there's the behaviour of Obama's loyalists.

Ever since I first reported the conditions of Manning's detention in December 2010, many of them not only cheered that abuse but grotesquely ridiculed concerns about it. Joy-Ann Reid, a former Obama press aide and now a contributor on the progressive network MSNBC, sadistically mocked the report: ''Bradley Manning has no pillow?????''. With that, she echoed one of the most extreme right-wing websites, RedState, which identically mocked the report: ''Give Bradley Manning his pillow and blankie back.'' They hold themselves out as adversarial watchdogs, but nothing provokes the animosity of establishment journalists more than someone who challenges government actions.

Typifying this mentality was a CNN interview on Thursday night with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. It was to focus on documents revealing secret efforts by US officials to pressure financial institutions to block WikiLeaks' funding, a form of extra-legal punishment that should concern everyone, particularly journalists.

But the CNN host was uninterested. Instead she tried to get Assange to condemn the press policies of Ecuador, a tiny country that exerts no influence. To the mavens of the US press, Assange and Manning are enemies to be scorned because they did the job that the press refuses to do: namely, bring transparency to the bad acts of the US government and its allies.

Manning has bestowed the world with multiple vital benefits. But as his court martial finally reaches its conclusion, one likely to result in a long prison term, it appears his greatest gift is this window into America's political soul.

Glenn Greenwald is a columnist on civil liberties and US national security issues for The Guardian.

10 DECEMBER 2012

Help us continue to cover 100% of Bradley's legal fees! Donate today.

In his presentation David Coombs acknowledges the importance of public support, and he affirmed that your ongoing support has made a real difference.

On December 3rd, David Coombs, Bradley's attorney, gave his first public presentation to an audience of over 100 at All Souls Church in Washington DC. In his speech, he acknowledged the importance of public support and the influence public pressure had in having Bradley moved from Quantico prison. He also acknowledged the difficulty Bradley faces with so much government opposition:

"When I'm in the courtroom, I stand up and look to my right, and, I see the United States government. The United States government with all of its resources, all of its personnel, I see them standing against me and Brad. And I have to admit to you, that can be rather intimidating. And I was intimidated. Especially when the President of the United States says your client broke the law. Especially when congress members say your client deserves the death penalty.

I want to tell you though today as I stand here I'm no longer intimidated. I am not intimidated because when I stand up I know I'm not standing alone. I know I'm not alone because I turn around and I see the support behind me. I see members here today in the audience that are there every time we have a court hearing. I see what I am not going to affectionately call the 'truth batallion,' those who wear a black shirt. It has the word 'truth' on it, and they are behind me. And when I look there, I know that I also have unlimited personnel and unlimited resources."

December 17th will be Bradley Manning's third birthday in prison without trial Let Bradley know you care! Write him a letter of support for his 25th birthday - his third behind bars.

Bradley Manning will turn 25 on December 17th. It will be his third birthday in prison without trial. His court martial is scheduled for March, 2013.

Military whistle-blower Bradley Manning will turn 25 on December 17th.

It will be his third birthday in prison, and by the time his court martial begins it will have been almost three years in prison: one year of which in the Quantico marine brig, where he was held in solitary confinement against the recommendations of mental health professionals. His trial is scheduled to start next March, and he needs our support. Please take a few minutes to send Bradley a birthday message, and to send a gift to his Defense Fund.

Bradley's lawyer David Coombs recently spoke publicly for the first time. He said that Bradley is one of the smartest, most caring young men he's ever met, and he also talked about Bradley's future dreams and goals:

"And [Bradley] told me that his dream would be to go to college, go into public service, and perhaps one day, run for public office. And I asked Brad, why would he want to do that? And he said, 'I want to make a difference. I want to make a difference in this world.'"

Please take some time before December 17 to show Bradley that you are thinking of him, and appreciate his efforts to hold US government officials accountable by informing the American public.

In addition to mailing him a birthday message and donating to his Defense Fund, you can also take a photo holding a "Happy birthday Bradley Manning!" sign and e-mail it to

We will compile photos to share on our website, and send them to Bradley as well.

27 JANUARY 2013

President Obama has opposed waterboarding as torture since the 2008 campaign - so why is he sending the man who helped end that practice to prison?

Former CIA officer John Kiriakou, who helped expose the Bush administration's torture program, recently plead guilty to sharing the name of a colleague to journalists to use as a source. He is expected to receive a sentence of 30 months in prison.1

It's a cruel irony that the first agent connected to the CIA torture program to go to prison is the whistleblower who spoke out against the heinous practices of our government. From Bradley Manning to Aaron Swartz to John Kiriakou, the government's pattern of overzealously prosecuting activists and whistleblowers has ruined too many lives already. If President Obama wants to show he opposes torture and supports government transparency he should pardon Kiriakou immediately.

Click here to read and sign the petition:

PARDON KIRIAKOU

In fact, the Justice Department has refused to pursue any of the people who sanctioned and carried out the torture Kiriakou helped expose. Yet they have gone after whistleblowers and activists with a zeal unmatched by any administration in history. Bradley Manning faces life in prison. Aaron Swartz took his life to avoid prosecution. Thomas Drake, Shamai Leibowitz, the list goes on and on.

Kiriakou is the sixth person to be indicted under the Espionage Act by the Obama administration.3It's time the president end this war on whistleblowers. He can start by pardoning John Kiriakou.

Kiriakou served his country in the CIA for over 15 years, risking his life as an undercover agent chasing Al-Qaeda overseas — he does not deserve this treatment. Kiriakou says he engaged in rendition that resulted in the torture of detainees. He did not personally carry out torture. His leak was not even made public and presented no harm the country.

Compare this to the reckless and very public outing of Valerie Plame — a case that resulted in four felony convictions for Scooter Libby, but not a single day in jail. It is unconscionable that Libby could avoid punishment, while Kiriakou must face years in prison for exposing the illegal and inhumane actions of the government — actions the Obama administration claims to oppose.

President Obama should not punish, but pardon John Kiriakou for his exceptional patriotism in speaking out against torture.

Thank you for standing up for transparency and fighting to protect whistleblowers.

3. Obama’s War on Whistleblowing: Ex-CIA Agent Indicted Under Espionage Act, Kevin Gosztola, The Dissenter, 4/6/2012.

Firedoglake is supported entirely by small donations from people like you.
Can you chip in to keep us strong? Click here to contribute.

See also:

Censorship Part 1

Censorship Part 2

Censorship Part 3

Censorship Part 4

Censorship Part 6

RECOMMENDED READINGS

Contact me at: red-jos_at_red-jos_net

Mannie & Kendall Present: LESBIAN AND GAY SOLIDARITY ACTIVISMS

Mannie De Saxe also has a personal web site, which may be found by clicking on the link: RED JOS: HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVISM

Mannie's blogs may be accessed by clicking on to the following links:

MannieBlog (from 1 August 2003 to 31 December 2005)

Activist Kicks Backs - Blognow archive re-housed - 2005-2009

RED JOS BLOGSPOT (from January 2009 onwards)

This page updated 29 FEBRUARY 2016 and again on 4 JULY 2021

PAGE 7